Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Joschka Fischer was German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005, a term marked by Germany's strong support for NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999, followed by its opposition to the war in Iraq. Fischer entered electoral politics after participating in the anti-establishment protests of the 1960s and 1970s, and played a key role in founding Germany's Green Party, which he led for almost two decades.

Jun 17, 2016Mark Leonard
, Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, examines how Kofi Annan, George Soros, Peter Sutherland, and others are thinking about a challenge that is only getting bigger.

For any citizen of Europe, reading so superficial and unreflective an article from a politician with Joschka Fischer’s seniority and experience is extremely depressing.
Like many others who should know better he equates, without qualification, the recent resurgence of popular support for right-wing/nationalist parties in many European countries as a regressive vote for a return to the unthinking nationalism which inspired the terrible experiences of the last century. On the basis of this analysis he calls for yet more European integration.
What he and many others ignore or disregard (or perhaps overlook) is that the recent growth of nationalist parties has occurred in almost exact lock-step with the expansion of the powers of the European Commission and its authority to interfere with and dictate, through its directives (an interestingly Orwellian term) the day-to-day conduct of the lives of the citizens of Europe. Can he not conceive that when the British vote for Brexit or the French for Marie Le Pen and the Italians for Beppe Grillo their concern is less the desire to fall back into mindless nationalism but to protest the steady eradication of democratic accountability in the EU, as the ‘European Project’ has been relentlessly pursued by the European Commission, and by many complaisant politicians like himself, in the EU member countries? The approval of this steady shift by the unelected European Commission and by the also unelected 30,000 eurocrats is an understandable, if deplorable, demonstration of self-interest but senior politicians like Herr Fischer should answer to a higher, more principled political ethos.
Herr Fischer should be old enough to remember the wide discussion in European circles, about 35 years ago, of the principle of subsidiarity, the principle that political authority and decision-making should take place at the lowest possible level. This eminently democratic principle was rapidly suppressed by the EU elite in favour of the fundamental shift towards the centralist, authoritarian and anti-democratic structure that governs the EU today.
Furthermore it is incontestably clear that ‘more Europe’ has failed abysmally - politically, socially, financially and economically and it is no wonder that protest politics has gained in tandem with this failure. Vague unspecified calls for ‘more Europe’ do nothing to address the very serious problems the EU faces and are deeply irresponsible and disappointing. (In this respect it is sad to see Wolfgang Schauble and Jens Weidemann recently uttering similar unreflective calls for inflexibility.)
The fact is that the European political elite has from the start steadily refused to address the fundamental problem of creating a genuine European demos and taking real steps to blend the desirable and necessary and admirable formation of a close operational association of the countries of Europe with the principle of democracy. Unless the peoples of Europe have full confidence in the elite this will never happen.

Indeed well put Giles! It is hard to imagine a better example of how deceitful EU politicians have become than this article. They argue for democracy while laboring to corrupt it with unelected executive branches (the European Commission) at the service of untouchable organizations (like Goldman Sachs). They argue that self-determination is hopeless while degrading our economies to rent seeking schemes. They claim to know it all, while blatantly contradicting what Nobel prize winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz conclude inevitably causing divergente development. These well spoken politicians are, plain and simple, the face of XXI century iteration with the continental slide towards serving the fascio of interests of an elite. Yes, plain and simple, they are back ...

+1
Very well put. I must confess Herr Fischer's assertions with no qualifications are enough to make my blood boil. These people are senior political figures and yet they cannot see what is plainly in front of them.

I'm sure the author has good intentions. He is has missed the boat on critical points, though, and can't see the problems in front of him. "But nationalist politicians whose declared goal is to destroy Europe’s unity and peaceful integration have now won in major democratic elections and referenda." The statement hasn't the vaguest clue as to what "Europe's unity" should mean. People across the continent are telling the folks running the EU that they are doing it wrong, and the only response they get is "our way is the only way." I'm sorry, but if you are truly interested in European unity, you are going to need to ask how Europe wants to be united and consider offering that sort of unity. It may not be the unity you want, but that has more to do with your own egos than the needs of Europe. The determination among the EU leadership to force types of unity that no one wants is what is going to break the union. That thinking has already forced the UK to leave.

"I'm sure the author has good intentions" - this sort of people always do. As you rightfully note this is always the outcome when we trust our future to those that think that "our way is the only way". And one day when confronted with its disastrous consequences will say that "they didn't know" or worse, that it's people's fault for not having done exactly what they commanded. Democracy in the EU is over, done with, there is no reform that will bring it back, only its disassembly will. The fight to recover self-determination must begin, for our children's sake.

I was born in 1940 in the UK, have lived in the USA since the late 1960s and done work assignments in more than 50 countries around the world.
There have been a lot of changes in the world in the past 70 plus years and some amazing progress ... but at the same time many powerful leaders in business and government in almost every country in the world have taken advantage of the system in ways that have been anti-social in its broadest sense.
Modern technology enables incredible wealth creation, but the socio-enviro-economic system allows most of this wealth to concentrate under the control of relatively few. This is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed, but it would appear that conventional business, economic and political thinkers do not have the interest or the tools to do much about it.
I argue that a good start would be to introduce a better framework of metrics so that the idea of money wealth gets to be balanced by values associated with people and human capital and nature and natural capital. We have the technology to do amazing things, but we have a socio-enviro-economic system that constrains what is needed and what is possible.
Peter Burgess ... http://truevaluemetrics.org

The EU's problem is Germany. Germans think the EU is theirs and they can rule all EU citizens. We EU citizens are fed up with German domination. Angela Merkels actions to make Ukraine (one of the most corrupt countries), Georgia (another corrupt former Sovjet member) and Byelorussia member of EU and NATO have worsened the East-West relations. Think twice mister Fisher: it's your country that is jeopardizing peace in Europe. Angela Merkels dream of controlling these Sovjet-countries by getting them in NATO and EU reminds me of Hitler, he had the same dream but tried it with military power. Merkel is too long in power. That's dangerous and it's time for Germany to give up its imperial dreams.

The kind of nationalism the people want does not lead to war. The problem is that in most countries only the more extreme political parties will listen to the concerns that people have about the EU.

Free movement of labour dilutes the social nets in the richer countries. Only the immigrants and the employers profit from it and the rest pays with lower quality of life, higher costs for infrastructure and unsustainable social security.

The elites say that free trade is only possible with free movement of labour. But this is not necessary. It is the paying interests behind these politicians that want this - not the majority of voters.

Today colonialism is out of the question. So instead of conquering new territories these interests want to enlarge their markets by immigration. Just like with the wares before it is the average citizen that pays the price while a small, well connected minority reaps the benefits.

As history has so unfortunately shown throughout Europe's unfortunate history, nationalism is a social cancer that leads to global war and destruction. Now, it appears that America has caught this terrible mental disease and wants to control the world in the name of protecting America's interests.

Europe should long ago have cut the apron strings tying it to Washington. Europe continues to ignore its own best interests so that it can better serve Washington’s. It’s a suicide mission.

Washington’s interests include undermining Eurasia, first, by continuing the driving of that wedge between Europe and Asia by demonizing Russia and insisting that Europe agree to anti-Russian sanctions (Washington has enjoyed success on this score); second, by interrupting the maritime leg of China’s “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) super-mega-silk-road project (looks as if Duterte threw a grenade into that one); and third, demanding that US allies resist the invitation to help found the AIIB (that one didn’t work out either, and Washington got trampled in the rush of enthusiasm for it). Indeed, nothing terrifies Washington more than the spectre of a Eurasian 21st Century and will do whatever it takes to torpedo it. Keep your eye on Hillary.

Anyone needing a quick intro to this ought to consult Chas Freeman’s two papers on it, one on the maritime dimension of OBOR written in June, the other on what’s in OBOR for the US which appeared on his site a few days ago. Longer, more detailed explications are of course legion.

you are sooo funny - the unelected European Commission is composed of former and future employees of Goldman Sachs - do you want to think a little?! Only the disassembly of the EU will return self-determination to the continent. People can now see through your arguments that XYZ is to blame ("USA", "Germany", "neocons" etc) - we are the ones to blame for not forcing the exit of our own countries from this new hegemon.

Indeed, with its lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, its invasion in Iraq and its spying on EU politicians, its cooperation with brutal occupiers like Israel and brutal regimes like SaoudiArabia, the USA proved being an unreliable partner. Let's get rid of that partnership.

It is a disingenuous oversimplification to confine the problem to some kind of evil nationalism while waging a cultural war. Culture is the issue not immigration as such. There was no evil nationalism when Europe's open borders were for Europeans only: we are all of the one culture. The issue is of swamping Europe with an unrestricted influx of immigrants. Setting aside the significant logistical and economic issues, the immigrants are of a different culture, one that conflicts with European culture, and they do not assimilate. Rather, they wish to dominate and the powers that be and the media, for their own reasons, encourage this.
So it is about culture not nationalism.
There will be culture. The question is which culture, white Christian culture or the culture of Islam or Israel; the loving and forgiving God of Christianity or the angry vengeful Gods of the Semites?
It is time for Europeans to wake up. If they are to allow their culture be changed they should at least be permitted to do it consciously instead of sleep-walking into the unknown.

Dingle Berry
I agree that Europeans have to wake up. The european values like: free speech, citizen rights, equal rights of women, democracy, are being threatened by immigrants from other cultures. Add to it that the Europeean population decreases and immigration increases we have one of the biggest threats to the future existence of the European world.

It is actually wuch worse than that the world´s leaders are not simply ignore the problem or focus on long-term solutions The major focus of the next summit is not about helping the refugees to survive is about keeping refugees in developed countries this is your main objective

He is absolutely right! We need to overcome the borders of nationalism in our heart, minds, and societies! I'm 28 and identify myself as Hispanic-European and with the region I was born and feel local until today. Sadly, the new rise of nationalism is threatening the future of upcoming generation through hate mongering populist taking advantage of the current identity and institutional crisis in Europe. Digital revolution has initiated a new age and it is absolutely naive to believe, that we can face the current social, economic, or political challenges on a nation state level...or play a major geopolitical role in the world. British nationalism is destroying the UK like the other white nationalists in Europe are questioning the democratic post-war consensus...in the year 2016!!!

You claim to be a democrat but you also appear quite happy to deride the will of the people when they vote. Sounds to me you know what is good for everybody else and don't think people need asking. Too worried Brits have chosen to go their way and I bet completely sure that Catalans can't have any of it. You're almost 30 years old and still don't know why democracy and self-determination are foundational european values. A Franquist reborn sounds to me. Please rethink before becoming a Torquemada forcing a new truth.

Europe is a diverse set of countries, ranging in size from medium sized countries like Russia with a population of 140 millions ( one tenth of China), to small sized countries like Germany with 80 million people barely 3 times the population of Shanghai, to mini countries like Slovakia with a population of a fifth of Shanghai. It is possibly the internal conflicts, competition, diversity and contradictions, not to mention the threats on its borders by various external actors that brought about the rationalistic outbreak known as "western civilization" that could also be called "western militarization" or more precisely a "somehow civilized militarization" a far cry from the "somehow militarized civilization" that was and still is China.

How does Fischer know we are living in a "post-empirical" reality? Just because he wants it to be? The only evidence we have is our history and that has always shown that multi national confederations always break down. With one hand you denounce colonialism and empire and with the other you support it just with a different guise. One group always winds up influencing policy more than others. These chaps want a United Europe when Spain and Belgium as example, are having difficulty keeping their nations in one piece. Please stop using people and their countries as real life experiments. Many have fought and died in real struggles for their existence.

I agree with you Mathew. This is a particularly dangerous moment for Germany who was dragged into the EU essentially to be the muscle of a totalitarian federation. It's a role we know she can do but indeed wont server her interests either. Countries like Portugal where I think Jose comes from (so do I!) are breeding governments made of people willing to do anything but have a referendum where their own people ever say they really want. This is why there are no old democracies in the eurozone: people are still buying the argument that their own fascists know better.

I have to say I understand the tendency to blame Germany because they are strong, but I don't see that as completely coherent. It was Germany that proposed that Greece leave the eurozone - which is the only solution that would have allowed resolution without further centralization. It seems to me that stodgy Germany is being made a scapegoat for the French and Belgian desire for centralization in some ways.

Mr. Fischre writes in terms of phenomena. However many of these are factual and clear.
- these resurgent nationalist have specific concrete desires. You cannot compare that to Nazi Nationalism. Although some politicians are eager to do so.
- there is no fear of the unknown relating to the inflow of foreigners. The common citizen, not the elites, know exactly what is to expect. They will be driven out of their homes and neigbourhoods. Crimes go up. So do the taxes. As integration of a non-westen immigrant in a western country cost about Euro 100.0o0o.- per person.
- Also the ambition to build a united states of Europe( trade, values, politics, army, etc. ) in just a few decades is unrealistic.
Just bringing coordination in trade, and seek improvement for efficiency and synergy, among EU countries is what is needed.
That can count on support of the citizen.

Joschka Fischer asks: "How many Europe do Europeans want?" His answer is that "Europeans will need not just more Europe, but also a different and more powerful Europe." To make it happen we need to put aside "nationalism." He recalls François Mitterand's "final address to the European Parliament in 1995" months before he died.
The Balkan wars were raging and Mitterand warned against "Europe’s great scourge," saying: “Le nationalisme, c’est la guerre!” Bearing in mind that nationalism and war had dominated the first half of the 20th century in Europe, he hoped that the spectre of nationalism wouldn't come back to haunt us, posing a "threat to....peace, democracy, and security."
Two decades later, nationalism is seeing "a Europe-wide revival," with its supporters vowing to "destroy Europe’s unity and peaceful integration /having/ now won in major democratic elections and referenda." The Brexit vote in June has emboldened populists in France, Germany and the Netherlands to seek legislative and executive power in next year's elections. In Hungary and Poland nationalist leaders have adopted authoritarian streak, alienating themselves from the liberal-democratic social principle of tolerance and diversity.
Today's European project which began with the 1951 Treaty of Paris, that established the European Coal and Steel Community was inspired by the injunction "never again". Never again would European nations allow virulent and competitive nationalism to tear them apart as they had been in two disastrous wars. Never again would the fate of the continent be left to national parliaments, racist and populist sentiments. According to Europe's founding fathers, a cohesion, beginning with a common market, respect for democratic institutions, human rights, and the rule of law, would define the European project.
To understand the resurgence of nationalism Fischer points out grievances as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and "ensuing global recession," blaming the “establishment” - political and financial elites - for its "massive failure." Resentment has eroded "intra-European solidarity and mutual trust, and the EU has become mired in a prolonged bout of slow growth and high unemployment."
No doubt America's "decline" and its turning inward, with "wealth and power" pivoting to Asia; Russia's ambition to recapture its Soviet glory, to challenge Western hegemony and values; worldwide "discontent with globalization, digitization, and free trade, accompanied by a slow shift toward protectionism" are too overwhelming for European leaders, who had been used to decades of complacency. The multiple crises across Europe had instilled fear and uncertainty that people want to take out their anger and frustration on the influx of foreigners flooding into Europe.
Fischer suggests the "increasing economic and political empowerment of women and minorities" being a thorn in many people's side. But they are the ones who don't benefit from globalised trade, and feel the pressure of not coping with technology and scientific progress that had transformed manufacturing and made unqualified labour redundant.
It makes sense that "when fear runs rampant in Europe, people seek salvation in nationalism, isolationism, ethnic homogeneity, and nostalgia....when supposedly all was well in the world." Most of those who long for "the good old days" were born after the war. They hadn't been through hardships like their parents and grandparents. As baby-boomers, they had social benefits served on a silver platter, when economy boomed across the continent in the first decade of the European project. Disappointed that their politicians no longer can deliver, they put the blame on the EU and seek to dismantle it altogether. Instead of changing the European project, politicians and their citizens need to change their mindset, by being flexible and pragmatic.﻿

before Brexit, global attitudes research (ref below) found out that only 19% of europeans wanted "more Europe". And we know well where that already abysmal figure has been heading since then. http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/

Back to basics. Let the citizens of every country take full responsibility and accountability for their votes and the people they choose to govern them. The EU in its current structure is too cumbersome, autocratic, selfish, biased, greedy, inefficient, inadequate and the list goes on..and on...and on...

I do hope you fell better after that rant. Much of what has been in the last sixty plus years (more so recently) reminds me of the carrot and donkey trick. Now that people have finally realised that their lot is a farce they want things to change but have no idea what to change because they have allowed themselves to be dumbed down so much. The result is to grab at anything they know and invariably that will be past glories. Once all this comes to pass it will be inevitable that the carrot will turn to a stick which will herald in another chapter to the human cause..

Mitterand is a great example for French nationalism. He pushed a structurally highly deficient Maastricht Treaty in order to undercut German economic strength. He succeeded since the Maastricht-Euro failed, and the ESM/EZB introduce the mutualisation of public debt without restricting the nationalistic club-med on expenditures and entitlements. Great nationalistc victory: unrestricted national autonomy on the side of expenditures and entitlements, and shared responsibility for present and future liabilities by all Euro-members.
With the presents institutions and established procedures we do not need 'more Europe', as this mess will invariably lead to more exits. Unless we find a way to a 'better EU' it will melt and crumble as the Arctic ice, and bigger and smaller parts will just brake off. Like the UK already did. Mr. Fischer will probably never accept that 'his' very wrongheadedness about the EU is the cause of failure, as was the ruthlessly and sneaky nationalism of Mr. Mitterand.